Spring forward.
To delete this message, click the X at top right.

#Brunson v. Adams - MAGAts Version of Birthers Hopium / ReVote2017 SCOTUS Case

Abandon reality, all ye who enter here. *Democracy*Under*Threat*
User avatar
Luke
Posts: 5587
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:21 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

#Brunson v. Adams - MAGAts Version of Birthers Hopium / ReVote2017 SCOTUS Case

#76

Post by Luke »

Thank you for finding that sekrit clip of Foggy, Jem! Was that Foggy skooling William Renquist during Bush v Gore?

Foggy, even though the Bros are so on the right track, your guidance and wisdom could make you a HERO to all the Brunson v Adams fans. Heck, they might even do a commemorative coin of you. So reconsider and post some of those helpful hints on their Twitter account.
Lt Root Beer of the Mighty 699th. Fogbow 💙s titular Mama June in Fogbow's Favourite Show™ Mama June: From Not To Hot! Fogbow's Theme Song™ Edith Massey's "I Got The Evidence!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5jDHZd0JAg
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5385
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

#Brunson v. Adams - MAGAts Version of Birthers Hopium / ReVote2017 SCOTUS Case

#77

Post by bob »

CAN'T BELIEVE I MISSED THIS! :crying:
Image ImageImage
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14351
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

#Brunson v. Adams - MAGAts Version of Birthers Hopium / ReVote2017 SCOTUS Case

#78

Post by RTH10260 »

doG will be impressed :twisted:
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

#Brunson v. Adams - MAGAts Version of Birthers Hopium / ReVote2017 SCOTUS Case

#79

Post by northland10 »

Filed in the still open district case in Utah where we are looking the magistrate's report on the MTD of the Fourth Amended Complaint.

Fourth.
Plaintiff Loy Arlan Brunson ("Brunson") in pro se, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civil P. 72(b)(2) 1 hereby moves this court with his OBJECTION TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ("R&R") (ECF 69) and states:

Plaintiff objects to the R&R because it mischaracterizes serious controlling points of Bronson's complaint and of his opposition to Defendants motion to dismiss ("Opposition"), and it overlooks how the causes of action against Defendants clearly represent how Defendants have personally seriously damaged Brunson beyond irreparable harm, and how these damages coincidentally are so covert and benign that nobody can see how these damages committed against Brunson have also caused a national security breach to such a level that they are to be counted as acts of treason.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 7.72.0.pdf

:roll:
101010 :towel:
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5385
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

#Brunson v. Adams - MAGAts Version of Birthers Hopium / ReVote2017 SCOTUS Case

#80

Post by bob »

The ob. PFR filed in SCOTUS.

P.S.: Send money.
Image ImageImage
chancery
Posts: 1311
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:24 pm
Verified:

#Brunson v. Adams - MAGAts Version of Birthers Hopium / ReVote2017 SCOTUS Case

#81

Post by chancery »

Thanks Bob! :thumbsup:

Golly, Brunson’s petition for rehearing is a beaut. :dance:

Now, to be fair, I have to acknowledge that his first sentence, while a bit awkward, is fine (except for the fact that it is completely false). One might even call it lawyerly (same caveat):
Rehearing of the denial of certiorari is appropriate m situations involving "intervening circumstances of substantial or controlling effect or . . . other substantial grounds not previously presented." S. Ct. R. 44.2. Because this is such a case, Petitioner moves this Honorable Court to grant this petition for rehearing.
But immediately afterwards Brunson goes into gagaland:
This case represents a very powerful domestic covert operation that is so benign that it cannot been seen on how it has breached our national security, and how it is affecting the national security of both Canada and Mexico, and how it has circulated fears that we might soon see the destruction of property along with a large volume of bloodshed in our own streets.
He's having trouble with subject matter jurisdiction, but he gives it his best shot:
When a case like this one comes forward under a petition for writ of certiorari claiming that there exists a serious national security breach, and that this breach is an act of war, and that it requires an act on an emergency level to repair this breach immediately-to stop this war, and that those perpetrators of this breach are the respondents, doesn't this Court have the power to adjudicate these serious claims and to immediately end the conflict and fix the national security breach?
:crazy:

He appeals to the Court's institutional self-interest:
Currently because of this, members of Congress, with their power to assemble and with their voting powers, can completely redo the Supreme Court of the United States to their likings, like packing the Court.

"I want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh- you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions," Schumer told a cheering crowd in March 2020. (This statement can be easily found on the internet.)
Note his casual approach to evidence; most pro se litigants grok that you have to cite something.

He invokes his popular and spiritual support:
"We the People" have declared that the Constitution was established to secure the "Blessings of Liberty" and have joined with Brunson on a large scale with their souls and prayers that this Court will grant this petition. Google "Raland Brunson" or "Brunson case" and see how much this case brings hope across the globe. Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and other social giant platforms worked vigorously to keep this case from becoming popular.
Back to subject matter jurisdiction, and a misapplied legal maxim that the Kraken lawyers invoked in the Michigan election litigation:
On page App. 58 of Brunson's writ under the heading "SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION" and with the support of the proper legalese, Brunson points out with the proper legalese that fraud vitiates everything it touches, and that the purpose of the 117 Session of Congress was to count the votes under the 12th Amendment, but because they refused to investigate the allegations that the election was rigged, which is an act of fraud (?) [sic], and being that 12th Amendment cannot protect fraud, therefore, didn't the said session of Congress turn into an administrative function making them all liable for suit without the protection of any kind of judicial, jurisdictional or any kind of immunity?
In conclusion:
Should this Court decide to overturn equitable maxim in favor of the object principle of justice, obviously it would do this because it believes in so doing our courts would no longer be so precarious, trial cases would be much easier with less stress to judge, settlements would grow much higher, less lawsuits would be filed, appeals would be greatly reduced, and our court system would be the most just and highly respected and dearly admired court system more than ever before.

Due to the serious nature of this case; a breach of national security arising from an act of war as described above, Petitioner moves this Honorable Court, without delay, to single handily exercise its powers to correct this breach and bring peace and hope back to this land by granting this petition in its fullest request.
:rolleye: :rotflmao:
User avatar
scirreeve
Posts: 1343
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:56 pm

#Brunson v. Adams - MAGAts Version of Birthers Hopium / ReVote2017 SCOTUS Case

#82

Post by scirreeve »

The website that used to promote the Brunson and Cromar shit has gone off the rails (even more). Now posting Anna von Krazy pants shit and seims to have forgotten about Brunson and Cromar.
Capture.JPG
Capture.JPG (89.51 KiB) Viewed 978 times
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14351
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

#Brunson v. Adams - MAGAts Version of Birthers Hopium / ReVote2017 SCOTUS Case

#83

Post by RTH10260 »

What 'shrooms do these people consume? :brickwallsmall:
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5385
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

#Brunson v. Adams - MAGAts Version of Birthers Hopium / ReVote2017 SCOTUS Case

#84

Post by bob »

Rumble:

Grifters gotta.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 5830
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:25 pm

#Brunson v. Adams - MAGAts Version of Birthers Hopium / ReVote2017 SCOTUS Case

#85

Post by Suranis »

Let me sum up that video...

Image
Hic sunt dracones
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5385
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

#Brunson v. Adams - MAGAts Version of Birthers Hopium / ReVote2017 SCOTUS Case

#86

Post by bob »


This is bad news: the grift will be officially over on February 21.

Well, until the next brother's failed lawsuit.

Bonus:

It takes five votes (not four) to grant rehearing.

:brickwallsmall:
Image ImageImage
User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 6691
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:27 am

#Brunson v. Adams - MAGAts Version of Birthers Hopium / ReVote2017 SCOTUS Case

#87

Post by pipistrelle »

We are back on the docket!
SCOTUS has updated our motion for reconsideration and has set a conference date of 2/17, just two weeks from Friday!
Should we be concerned? (Dunno what this means.)
User avatar
realist
Posts: 1117
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:25 am

#Brunson v. Adams - MAGAts Version of Birthers Hopium / ReVote2017 SCOTUS Case

#88

Post by realist »

pipistrelle wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 6:26 pm
We are back on the docket!
SCOTUS has updated our motion for reconsideration and has set a conference date of 2/17, just two weeks from Friday!
Should we be concerned? (Dunno what this means.)
No need for concern. It will be denied on 2/21.
Image
Image X 4
Image X 32
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5385
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

#Brunson v. Adams - MAGAts Version of Birthers Hopium / ReVote2017 SCOTUS Case

#89

Post by bob »

pipistrelle wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 6:26 pm
We are back on the docket!
SCOTUS has updated our motion for reconsideration and has set a conference date of 2/17, just two weeks from Friday!
Should we be concerned? (Dunno what this means.)
Brunson is being ignorant, deceptive, or both.

SCOTUS didn't "update" any "motion for reconsideration." Brunson filed a petition for rehearing, and SCOTUS set February 17 as the date they'll vote on this latest petition. To be charitable, Brunson is reporting SCOTUS updated its docket to reflect this latest action.

And, on February 21, SCOTUS' denial order will be published.

Despite the suit being very much dead, the grift will live on.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 6691
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:27 am

#Brunson v. Adams - MAGAts Version of Birthers Hopium / ReVote2017 SCOTUS Case

#90

Post by pipistrelle »

bob wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 6:54 pm
pipistrelle wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 6:26 pm
We are back on the docket!
SCOTUS has updated our motion for reconsideration and has set a conference date of 2/17, just two weeks from Friday!
Should we be concerned? (Dunno what this means.)
Brunson is being ignorant, deceptive, or both.

SCOTUS didn't "update" any "motion for reconsideration." Brunson filed a petition for rehearing, and SCOTUS set February 17 as the date they'll vote on this latest petition. To be charitable, Brunson is reporting SCOTUS updated its docket to reflect this latest action.

And, on February 21, SCOTUS' denial order will be published.

Despite the suit being very much dead, the grift will live on.
Now you see how easy it is to twig the ignorant such as myself.
chancery
Posts: 1311
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:24 pm
Verified:

#Brunson v. Adams - MAGAts Version of Birthers Hopium / ReVote2017 SCOTUS Case

#91

Post by chancery »

pipistrelle wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 7:02 pm
bob wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 6:54 pm
Brunson is being ignorant, deceptive, or both.

SCOTUS didn't "update" any "motion for reconsideration." Brunson filed a petition for rehearing, and SCOTUS set February 17 as the date they'll vote on this latest petition. To be charitable, Brunson is reporting SCOTUS updated its docket to reflect this latest action.

And, on February 21, SCOTUS' denial order will be published.

Despite the suit being very much dead, the grift will live on.
Now you see how easy it is to twig the ignorant such as myself.
:fingerwag:

Don't be fooled, the petition is ON THE DOCKET!!!

:yikes:
orlylicious wrote: Sat Jan 14, 2023 4:13 pm
Alert orlylicious, it's time for:

:panic: :panic: :panic: :panic:












:sarcasm:                                                     :guntootin:
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5385
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

#Brunson v. Adams - MAGAts Version of Birthers Hopium / ReVote2017 SCOTUS Case

#92

Post by bob »

pipistrelle wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 7:02 pm Now you see how easy it is to twig the ignorant such as myself.
This is the point where Foogy would say you aren't allowed to call yourself ignorant. :nope:
Image ImageImage
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

#Brunson v. Adams - MAGAts Version of Birthers Hopium / ReVote2017 SCOTUS Case

#93

Post by northland10 »

bob wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 6:54 pm
pipistrelle wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 6:26 pm
We are back on the docket!
SCOTUS has updated our motion for reconsideration and has set a conference date of 2/17, just two weeks from Friday!
Should we be concerned? (Dunno what this means.)
Brunson is being ignorant, deceptive, or both.

SCOTUS didn't "update" any "motion for reconsideration." Brunson filed a petition for rehearing, and SCOTUS set February 17 as the date they'll vote on this latest petition. To be charitable, Brunson is reporting SCOTUS updated its docket to reflect this latest action.

And, on February 21, SCOTUS' denial order will be published.

Despite the suit being very much dead, the grift will live on.
OMG, in two weeks... funny how the case was scheduled for conference just like it says in the Case Distribution Schedule for the October 2022 term.
101010 :towel:
User avatar
Luke
Posts: 5587
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:21 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

#Brunson v. Adams - MAGAts Version of Birthers Hopium / ReVote2017 SCOTUS Case

#94

Post by Luke »

omgomgomgomgomgomgomg

But but but Realist just told me in my birfday topic there was no need to :panic:!!!

Tearing apart the apartment looking for my Lavender Playbook and Go Bag! :panic:

Chancery, are you sure? Is it really for sure this time?

This image is inducing sheer :panic:!!! Look at these legal Champions. How could they lose? Most of Congress, President Biden and VP Harris will be removed!

Brunson Trio.jpg
Brunson Trio.jpg (37.28 KiB) Viewed 689 times
Lt Root Beer of the Mighty 699th. Fogbow 💙s titular Mama June in Fogbow's Favourite Show™ Mama June: From Not To Hot! Fogbow's Theme Song™ Edith Massey's "I Got The Evidence!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5jDHZd0JAg
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14351
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

#Brunson v. Adams - MAGAts Version of Birthers Hopium / ReVote2017 SCOTUS Case

#95

Post by RTH10260 »

Of course Biden will be removed! Just look at the piles of classified document they uncovered :twisted:
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

#Brunson v. Adams - MAGAts Version of Birthers Hopium / ReVote2017 SCOTUS Case

#96

Post by northland10 »

Goofy right-wingers are really good at getting folks out of office. Obama's out of office now, and they prevented him from being elected speaker where he could take over again as President after the dems removed POTUS and VPOTUS (or Hilary and gang stepped aside for Obama, again). All it took was the right's threat that they had figured out Obama's plan.
101010 :towel:
User avatar
Flatpoint High
Posts: 1278
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:58 am
Location: Hotel California, PH523, Galaxy Central, M103
Occupation: professional pain in the ass, voice actor & keeper of the straight face
Verified:

#Brunson v. Adams - MAGAts Version of Birthers Hopium / ReVote2017 SCOTUS Case

#97

Post by Flatpoint High »

noblepa wrote: Mon Jan 09, 2023 1:08 pm
Mr brolin wrote: Mon Jan 09, 2023 12:08 pm Followed by a Petition to Reconsider the Reconsideration etc, rinse and repeat until the grift dries up.... :bored:
They seem to think that SCOTUS is going to say, on the second try, "By golly, you're right. We made a mistake the last time."?

If they were to actually file more than one motion to reconsider, what recourse does the Court have, to punish/prevent such a waste of the Court's time? Can they instruct the clerk to not accept any more motions from that party?

Its called the Supreme Court for a reason. There is no further appeal after you lose at SCOTUS, whether on the merits of your case or if they decline to hear your case.

For that matter, would a (first) motion to reconsider even be brought up in the conference that SCOTUS uses to pick cases to hear? I know that not all cases that request cert are even distributed for conference. Law clerks for the justices pre-screen cases and only pass on those that they think stand at least a snowball's chance in hell of being granted. I would think that the clerks would see this motion and realize that it was a 1000:1 shot at best in the first place and put the motion in the trash.

Given the enormous number of cases trying for certiorari every year, unless a motion to reconsider is accompanied by some new and novel legal arguments, not brought up the first time, I suspect that the court seldom even entertains an MTR, let alone grants one.
They'll appeal to the Constitutional Sheriffs.
castigat ridendo mores.
VELOCIUS QUAM ASPARAGI COQUANTUR
User avatar
Luke
Posts: 5587
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:21 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

#Brunson v. Adams - MAGAts Version of Birthers Hopium / ReVote2017 SCOTUS Case

#98

Post by Luke »

Forgot all about this. Here comes Brunson! :lol:
Jan 09 2023 Petition DENIED.
Jan 23 2023 Petition for Rehearing filed.
Main Document Certificate of Word Count Proof of Service
Feb 01 2023 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/17/2023.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.asp ... 2-380.html


The dotard re "truthed" it


Lt Root Beer of the Mighty 699th. Fogbow 💙s titular Mama June in Fogbow's Favourite Show™ Mama June: From Not To Hot! Fogbow's Theme Song™ Edith Massey's "I Got The Evidence!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5jDHZd0JAg
User avatar
scirreeve
Posts: 1343
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:56 pm

#Brunson v. Adams - MAGAts Version of Birthers Hopium / ReVote2017 SCOTUS Case

#99

Post by scirreeve »

Dev Pragad's stoopid website posted about it too. https://www.newsweek.com/supreme-court- ... mp-1782150
User avatar
Luke
Posts: 5587
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:21 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

#Brunson v. Adams - MAGAts Version of Birthers Hopium / ReVote2017 SCOTUS Case

#100

Post by Luke »

Thanks, Scir, that's insane. Looked up that writer, she went from Columbia Journalism major to a ridiculous hack in just a few years. Newsweek is worthless now, damn shame for a news source with such a grand history. Shame on you, Fatma.
Fatma Khaled @fatmakhaled46
Reporter @Newsweek, Previously: @businessinsider, @NYDailyNews. Reporting on the U.S. and the Middle East @Columbiajourn '20. Views here are my own. New York fatmakhaled.com Joined April 2013 1,446 Following 382 Followers
Mentioned we're following this train wreck here. Brunsons think they are so clever... when this fails, they think they can bring an identical case that's languished in an appeals court.


Lt Root Beer of the Mighty 699th. Fogbow 💙s titular Mama June in Fogbow's Favourite Show™ Mama June: From Not To Hot! Fogbow's Theme Song™ Edith Massey's "I Got The Evidence!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5jDHZd0JAg
Post Reply

Return to “The Big Lie & Aftermath of The Former Guy”